Paying Tax Without Setting Foot In California

 

I expect that many tax practitioners would consider state taxes to be a bane in their professional practice. I – unsolicited and without trying – have known more than a few.

Let’s limit our discussion to state income tax.

Mind you, we are not discussing the right of a state to tax. I practice within a Tristate area (Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio) and all three states impose business and personal income taxes. Yes, it can get messy. Take bonus depreciation, for example. This is a federal tax provision allowing the accelerated deduction of equipment and similar asset purchases. Some states will follow along with the federal treatment, others will ignore it completely, and yet others will have some odd hybrid. Take a relatively simple business return with activities across multiple states, and depreciation alone can raise the difficulty level of the return.

Mind you, some states are user-friendly with their tax laws (at least, as much as possible), but some states do not even pretend to be.

I am going to crimp from a notorious California tax case, changing the underlying taxpayer just a smidge to someone you will recognize.

Let’s take a partially retired Cincinnati tax CPA. He has several California clients, both business and personal. He consults, prepares returns and assists with tax agency correspondence and issues.  He of course invoices for his work, and some of those California clients issue him a Form 1099 to memorialize the payment. Critically, he never sets foot in California, and he has not for decades.

Does our Cincinnati tax CPA need to file a California income tax return?

Let’s walk through this.

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) annually matches 1099s to filed returns to identify individuals who may not have filed required California returns. The FTB saw those California-origin 1099s and contacted our valiant protagonist, who explained that he did not live in California, had not been in California in years, and – given its current deterioration – had no intention to ever visit California for any reason.

The FTB rejected his explanation, explaining that he had performed services for California businesses and thus had California-source income. The FTB sent a Proposed Assessment for tax, penalty and interest.

Our scrappy hero protested the assessment.

The Office of Tax Appeals (a/k/a Vought) decided as follows:

California imposes a tax on the taxable income of every nonresident, broadly defined as “gross income and deductions derived from sources within this state.”

There is no dispute that appellant, as owner of a sole proprietorship … conducted his … business as a sole proprietor.”

Regulation 17951-4 does not define the term ‘unitary business,’ but the definition can be inferred from Regulation 17951-4(b) … applying to a nonresident’s business, trade or profession … conducted partly within and partly without the state, where the part conducted within the state and the part conducted without the state are not so separate and distinct from and unconnected to each other to be separate businesses, trades or professions.”

Here, appellant … conducted a one-service business …. Therefore, we find that appellant was conducting a unitary business.”

What is the point of all this gum flapping?

California wants to apportion the California invoices to California. They do not even care if you were ever there.

Under the statutory grant of authority of R&TC section 25136(b), the FTB promulgated Regulation 25136-2, which provides detailed market-based sales factor sourcing provisions that implement and interpret R&TC section 25136.”

Pray tell, oh Oracle. How shall R&TC section 25136 be interpreted?

Regulation 25136-2(c) states that sales from services are assigned to [California] to the extent the customer of the taxpayer receives the benefit of the service in [California].”

Here is the wrap:

       

I do not mean to distract the lofty legal minds at the big-building-with-marble columns, but don’t you have to start with more-than-one if you are uniting down to one? Is there a trick-of-the-language thing happening here? Asking for a friend.

The case we are discussing (with some literary license) is Appeal of Bindley (CA OTA, May 30, 2019, No. 18032402).

What got me thinking about Bindley is the (very) recent case of Xavier Garcia-Rojas v FTB, A172054, CA Ct of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, 5/1/26.

Garcia-Rojas was a radiologist from Texas. He read images from around the nation, some of which came from California. The FTB wanted its pound of flesh, relying on Appeal of Bindley above.

This is, BTW, how bad tax law metastasizes. The first court misses the pitch altogether, and the next court just piggybacks.

The Court fortunately recognized the issue:

Here is the decision:

Bindley held that a “self-employed screenplay writer” in Arizona was a unitary business, and thus could be taxed under regulation 17951-4(c). (Bindley, at pp. 1, 4–5.) But in doing so, it focused on the tests to determine whether two different businesses are unitary. (Bindley, at pp. 4–5.) It ignored that there must be separate business activities to unite. (Ibid.; Bunzl Distribution USA, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 991.) The Board also relies on regulation 25120, subdivision (b), but that regulation states it applies only if there are “two or more businesses of a single taxpayer.” Thus, the Board failed to show that Garcia-Rojas is a unitary business as a matter of law.

It took it a while but they eventually got it right. This did not help Bindley, however, who was robbed on an issue a second-year accounting student could spot.

This seems to be an awful lot of work just to determine if our winsome-CPA-hero-of-the-story needs to file a nonresident California tax return. It is also why many CPAs consider state tax to be the bane of their practice.

Lost Records, A Dead Professional And A Tax Audit

 

I admit I was suspicious when I read the following:

The corporation had a bookkeeper during the years at issue, Robin Greenslade, who is now deceased. Petitioners trusted Ms. Greenslade to handle the accounting and did not regularly review her work.”

The corporation … also used the bookkeeping services of Joan Falanga during the years at issue. She recorded Mr. Ataya’s capital contributions …, but these records and, indeed, all of her records for the corporation are lost.”

That’s quite a run of bad luck.

By 2008 Hani Ataya had nearly 20 years’ experience in car sales. In 2008 he founded Cost U Less Cars, Inc., a California corporation, with a partner. The partner left in 2012 and Inaam Ataya (Hani’s mother) joined the business shortly thereafter. His mom had an IT degree and had worked for the state of California.

The business was relatively straightforward: it bought cars at auction and resold them. Hani was the primary buyer, and he regularly used cashier’s checks to buy cars. Sometimes he used them all, sometimes he did not. When he did not, he kept the unused checks in a desk drawer for later use.

COMMENT: Not loving this: it is weak control over cash and will look bad in the event of audit.

It appears Cost U Less Cars, Inc was making bank:

             

Wow.

The company then started losing money and ceased operations in 2020.

The company was audited by the IRS for years 2014 through 2017. The audit went poorly.

The company filed with the Tax Court. The filing was thrown out in August, 2023 because the corporation no longer existed under California law. A corporation is an artificial legal entity. It exists because a state says it exists and does not exist when a state says otherwise.

The IRS saw the Ataya’s taking approximately $1.5 million in 2015 via cashier’s checks to purchase a house in Granite Bay, California.

COMMENT: No problem as long as they reported it as income: wages, dividends, Nigerian prince 419 scam, whatever.

They took out additional cashier’s checks in 2016 to pay for flooring and improvements to the place.

COMMENT: Ditto.

The IRS next examined the two shareholder personal returns.

COMMENT: Not an uncommon expansion of the audit, and (frankly) expected in this instance.

Here are proposed adjustments to Hani’s 2015 and 2016 tax years:

     

Here are adjustments to his mom:

How can you miss $1.5 million? You would think they were in Congress or something.

The IRS came in hot. They wanted tax. They wanted penalties. And interest. Hani’s tab alone for the two years was over $600 grand.

The Ataya’s wanted penalty relief.

First up: Cost U Less Cars, Inc was hamstrung during its audit. Key players were gone. Its charter had been revoked, causing difficulties with obtaining alternative records.

Yep, the loss of two key players and business documentation was odd. What accounting remained was questionable, to such a degree that the IRS used bank account analysis to arrive at more solid numbers. Neither fact helped Hani and his mom, as those were outside normal business practices. And that charter thing was self-inflicted.

Next up: reliance on a professional.

I like it.

There were two bookkeepers, and someone (not a CPA) to prepare the tax returns.

Professionals.

Here are the ingredients to arguing reliance:

·       The advisor was competent with sufficient expertise to justify reliance.

·       The taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the advisor.

·       The taxpayer actually relied on the advisor’s judgement.

Then I read something I am unsure I have ever read before:

Although petitioners testified that they relied on … and … for bookkeeping services and on Mr. Packey for tax preparation services, the record lacks evidence of their professional qualifications or, in the case of Mr. Packey, evidence of his competence as a tax professional.”

Ouch. I am feeling vicarious pain on behalf of Mr. Packey.

The Tax Court sustained the penalties.

My thoughts?

I would have argued the penalties too. I almost have to, as a professional.

However, when I read the two Tax Court cases (business and personal), I was expecting fraud penalties at the end of the story.

Know when to walk away, folks.

Our case today was Ataya v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-55.

How To Lose $610 Million In Basis

 

Let’s talk today about partnership taxation.

The driving concept is relatively straightforward: have tax step out of the way and let partners arrange their own deal.

Q. You are willing to forego future (potential) profits for a larger guaranteed paycheck today?

A. Fine.

Q. You do not want to be responsible for any partnership losses?

A. We can work with that.

The problem, of course, is that some people will always try to game the system, so Congress and the IRS have been busy for decades trying to close the most egregious loopholes. The passive activity rules, for example, represented Congress responding to the Thurston Howell III tax shelters.

The taxation of a vanilla partnership is usually straightforward. Introduce complexity – especially intentional complexity – and the taxation can challenge even the most trained professional.

Let’s look at a recent case, one involving German companies and a U.S. parent. Do not worry: we will not discuss international tax provisions.

Let’s call the first German company “Dorothy.”

Dorothy owned a (German) subsidiary called “Blanche.”

There was a U.S. company called “Sophia” that ultimately owned both Dorothy and Blanche. Sophia is relatively quiet in this story.

In March 2001 Dorothy issued Blanche a $610 million promissory note guaranteed by Sophia.

Blanche contributed the note to a spanking new partnership - let’s call it “Rose” - in exchange for a limited partnership interest.

There are a couple of Code sections at play.

Code § 722 - Basis of contributing partner’s interest

The basis of an interest in a partnership acquired by a contribution of property, including money, to the partnership shall be the amount of such money and the adjusted basis of such property to the contributing partner at the time of the contribution increased by the amount (if any) of gain recognized under section 721(b) to the contributing partner at such time.

There is (usually) no gain or loss when a partner contributes property – including cash – to a partnership in exchange for an interest in the partnership. In fact, the only thing that (usually) happens is that the partner’s basis in the property (including cash) carries over to his/her basis in the partnership interest itself.

What about the partnership – does anything happen to the partnership?

26 U.S. Code § 723 - Basis of property contributed to partnership

The basis of property contributed to a partnership by a partner shall be the adjusted basis of such property to the contributing partner at the time of the contribution increased by the amount (if any) of gain recognized under section 721(b) to the contributing partner at such time.

The partnership (again – usually) just steps into the basis of the contributing partner.

But why Dorothy and all the weird maneuvering?

Remember that note which Dorothy issued to Blanche which was contributed to Rose? It will be paid off in 2009. With accumulated interest, the total would be over $1 billion.

Looks to me like we are moving money. And taxes, likely.

In April 2002, Blanche filed an entity classification election with the IRS to be disregarded as a entity separate from Dorothy.

The election was retroactive. Let’s check: retroactive to a few days BEFORE Dorothy issued the $610 million promissory note to Blanche.

You may have heard of entity classification elections by another name: check-the-box. Much of this area has to do with the popularity of limited liability companies. Left alone and depending on ownership, an LLC might be taxable as a partnership, a corporation, a proprietorship, whatever. The IRS tried to bring order to this, hence the check-the-box rules. If the LLC wants to be taxed as a corporation, it makes an entity election. This is, in fact, a common technique for LLCs that intend to be taxed as S corporations, as it has to be (recognized as) a corporation before it can be taxed as an S corporation.

Blanche went the other way. Blanche decided it wanted to be disregarded from Dorothy, meaning that it would be regarded as a division, department or branch of Dorothy. The IRS would “disregard” Blanche as a separate entity.

But one has to be careful. One wants to review tax-significant transactions, especially when check-the-box is retroactive. There is a Thanos finger snap element here.

Let’s go back to the basis that is powering Code sections 722 and 723. More specifically, let’s look at the section for basis itself:

Sec. 1012 Basis of property - cost

(a) In general. The basis of property shall be the cost of such property, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter and subchapters C (relating to corporate distributions and adjustments), K (relating to partners and partnerships), and P (relating to capital gains and losses).

Typical tax: the description of one word leads to another. Basis shall be the cost, padawan.

So, what is “cost”?

Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957) tells us “that which is actually paid for goods.”

What did Dorothy start this story with?

A note to Blanche.

Can a note represent “cost”?

You betcha, if I owe it to someone who can and intends to collect from me. Think about the note on a car purchase, for example.

Dorothy “actually paid for goods” before the Thanos snap. Blanche was a separate company and could enforce collection.

What happened after the Thanos snap?

There is no Blanche, at least not as a separate company.

Dorothy in effect owed itself.

Here is the Court:

… CSC Germany paid no amount, in money or property, to create the Note. Nor did CSC Germany “engage to pay or give” anything to someone else in exchange for that third person’s help in making the Note. The Note’s adjusted basis in CSC Germany’s hands was therefore zero, as we have held in multiple similar cases.”

Dorothy cannot create “cost” by issuing a note to itself. To phrase it differently, I cannot make myself a millionaire by issuing a million-dollar promissory note to myself.

Without cost, Dorothy does not have “basis” in the note.

Which means that Blanche does not have “basis” in Rose, since Blanche’s basis is just a roll-forward of Dorothy’s basis.

So, what happens when Dorothy pays Rose $1 billion in 2009?

I expect:

              Proceeds                         $1 billion

              Basis                                  zero (-0-)

              Gain                                  $1 billion

Blanche thought it had a $610 million asset on its books.

It did.

Blanche thought it had basis of $610 million in that asset.

It did … until the finger snap.

Our case today was Continental Grand Limited Partnership v Commissioner, 166 T.C. No. 3 (March 2, 2026).